I think everyone has the right to at least one child no matter how poor, stupid or Republican. And I will help support that child if you cannot. but anything after that is a luxury. There are too many couples that stop after having one child because they don’t feel they can afford another (while paying taxes that support the third, fourth and fifth child of people who couldn’t afford their first child).
Because there is nothing wrong with that. Actuarial science takes into account the notion that some people will be healthy and live a long time. Our welfare system is entirely contrived and we can decide who to cover and under what conditions to cover them.
I’m OK with forcing women to have children under some circumstances. And I am comfortable telling them they can’t get assistance without foregoing the ability to procreate while they are on assistance.
Since when do the Amish collect welfare? Normally they take care of their own, that also why they’re excused from social security (they never collect it).
It’s not for lack of trying. Seriously, there has been research in that area for decades. It turns out that killing millions of sperm per month is much harder than killing off one egg per month.
Again, not for lack of trying. Chemical birth control is certainly safer than it used to be, but it works because it causes changes in body chemistry and I just don’t see reducing the risk of that to zero.
I also find “offends some sensibilities” as an excuse for caution. The fact you don’t makes me think you’re a white male who has never been in the position of a minority having decisions made for you by a member of the majority power group.
What do you mean, “It depends on what you mean by coercion”. Coercion means it’s against the will of the individual, what’s to define there? The meaning is clear and simple.
I find it threatening that you are willing to make reproductive decisions for other people, that’s exactly the start of the slippery slope that led to so many problems during the first part of the 20th Century.
Yes, it is. First, forcing something like Depro-Provera on a woman takes years out of her potential time for reproduction which is MUCH more limited than that for men. Optimistically, a woman is fertile only about 35 years at most, and many will only have 20-25 years out of their lifetime in which reproduction is possible as fertility drops off sharply after 35, and is starting to decline notably after 30. Men usually have twice as many years in which to reproduce. One implant of Depro-Provera removes 1/7 to 1/5 of a woman’s reproductive years. That shouldn’t be done lightly.
Could you possibly do a little research before spouting off. No, forced sterilization being forbidden is NOT limited solely to the mentally retarded. You have to jump through a LOT of hoops and legal crap to get anyone sterilized without consent, even when it is arguably in someone’s best interest. And no, it is NOT constitutional to make birth control mandatory for welfare. What the hell makes you think that?
A child’s lifetime term on “welfare” is only five years. Period. That’s it. After five years the family receives no more money for that child ever. This has been the case since 1996. Again, please do some research.
Also, unless the kid is formally declared disabled, they are on Medicaid only, and only where it is available/offered. Medicare is reserved for the elderly or disabled, not for healthy children.
Not anymore – again, TANF (a.k.a. “welfare”) is limited to ONLY five years. You can not get welfare for a lifetime in the US, again, not since 1996. The only thing you can get lifetime benefits for is food stamps – as long as you aren’t convicted of a drug offense, and as long as you adhere to other requirements that may be imposed, such as looking for a job or getting yourself educated.
So, yeah, a single mom can get some money for a kid. For five years. Then she still has the cost of the kid but no more money coming. Which sucks, especially for the kid. What sucks even worse is that thanks to “social conservatives” she can’t get birth control easily, either. Which is why I’d like to see free birth control for these people because I think the cost of that will be more than offset by a reduction in kids born into such circumstances.
Yes, you’re definitely a man.
I find your attitude appalling and morally bankrupt. I will, of course, defend your right to hold it but I can not emphasize strongly enough how utterly nauseous that statement makes me.
So could I get a government paid for snip snip too? That would have been nice when I had to pay for mine, being the responsible citizen that I was. Why should she get hers free and I have to pay for mine?
NETA: I was being sarcastic. I wish that affordable birth control would be readily available to all, something kind of like universal health care, ya know.
Really? Then some ought to let the.guards at my local prison know that a bunch of folks from the outside world are invading the prison (in broad daylight no.less) to hold A.A. and N.A. meetings with the prisoners.
That depends on what you mean by scientific. I can think of a few tests. (one’s a doozy! :eek:) If these “tests” were to be performed in a lab, would that qualify as scientific?
Then who am I thinking of? Of course if they aren’t on public assistance, then they don’t have to forego having children.
Well, if there is really no reasonable hope for any sort of advancements from science in the forseeable future, then I guess we live with what science can provide to us and absent medical contraindications (that might arise with particular women) I would still support my plan.
Not white, but I am male. I am also relatively insulated from ever being on welfare so that might color my opinions as well. I might be singing a different tune if I was poor but I don’t think so. I don’t think I would have more than 1 kid if I couldn’t afford to raise a second kid. And if the government wants to force free contraception on me while I am on the dole, I think I would be OK with that too. I might feel little bit like I’m getting kicked while I am down or being humiliated for my poverty, but I doubt it.
So then by that definition, this isn’t coercion. It is a condition of receiving welfare. Whew, I thought you were going to say coercion included putting conditions of welfare because their only other choice is to get the money in some other way.
What problems? You mean the unconstitutional ones?
Wait, so you get this deprovera and it lasts for 5 fucking years? Thats amazing!!!
Oh wait
Why does something that lasts 5 years require a shot every 3 months?
I never said it was limited to just mental retards.
What makes you think it isn’t? Its pretty clear that you can put conditions on the receipt of welfare, everything from drug testing to showing up and having monthly conversations with a social worker.
“In enforcing the 60-month time limit, some states place limits on the adult portion of the assistance only, while still aiding the otherwise eligible children in the household.”
Sure, my perspective might be colored by my gender but there are enough women who also support some restrictions on abortion that I don’t think it is purely a matter of gender.
So you don’t think there is any situation ever when we can tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion? I don’t think you’re position is anywhere near the mainstream or supported by the rights described in Roe v Wade (which, I believe, allows states to ban abortions (absent health reasons) during the third trimester).
Really? I thought all babies incubated while the mother was taking drugs ended up with long term health problems?
Our right to not have to pay to support children we didn’t have any say in creating.
Since I personally couldn’t care less about reproductive rights other than how they affect me, whether or not the government got involved is to me immaterial. However, they are already involved in whether the mother gets to keep the product of her ability to reproduce, so it seems fairer all around that they step in prior to conception rather than after birth.
This is assuming that children born of drug addicts grow up to be willing and able to get jobs and pay taxes.
The mother in the OP isn’t likely to live long enough to draw either SS or Medicare, so your children will pay nothing. Meanwhile, we are all paying for her “life” and for her to keep making more lives, that may or may not be able to contribute to society.
You can reproduce as freely as you please, as long as the rest of us don’t have to pay to raise your kids.
Yes, it is coercion. If the choice is either “receive assistance but be sterilized for the duration” or “be homeless and starving” that is no real choice at all, it’s coercion. Unless you want to encourage people to steal that money they need in which case I don’t think the social costs will be outweighed by the good done by that “choice”, or else we’ll just wind up paying for them on the taxpayer dime when they land in jail. And by the way, jail is a lot more expensive than what passes for “welfare” these days.
There is a long-acting implant, and it is an implant, not a shot. But then, I don’t expect you to know squat about birth control given your prior statements. Although upon review I see that it only lasts about 3 years, not 5, but the point still stands.
The state’s ability to impose conditions is not unlimited. For example, the state can not compel you to sell yourself into slavery, commit a crime in return for “welfare”, undergo surgery against your will. Alright, there are exceptions to the latter, but they come at the end of lengthy and costly court battles. Since all that eugenics shit was overturned compelling people to have their reproductive rights terminated against their will has been largely off limits.
I will also note that compulsory drug testing of ALL welfare recipients (not just those with a history of abuse) is also controversial even now.
What do abortion restrictions have to do with imposing birth control on people?
For my personal position? Not in the first trimester, no, I don’t there there should be any restrictions on abortions in the first third of pregnancy. I think in the last third it should only be for the life and health of the mother. For the middle – I am happy to leave that in the hands of hospital ethics committees.
No, not true. MOST kids exposed to drugs during “incubation” turn out OK. Mom taking crap does increase the risk of problem, it does not guarantee it, and a lot of the problems are linked more to bad nutrition, mom neglecting herself, inadequate access to prenatal care, and whatever crap the drugs are cut with.
The normal rate of birth defects is about 3% in the developed world. Even if you double that to 6% that still leaves 94% of the kids normal. Hell, even if you raise the risk by a factor of ten (which drug abuse doesn’t) you’re still talking 70% of the exposed kids turning out normal.
Which drugs are most likely to cause damage also surprises people. Heroin – actually, all the opiates – are less toxic than stimulants like speed/cocaine/meth (which can, but do not always, cause prenatal strokes as an example) or ordinary alcohol, which can cause mental retardation as well as physical anomalies. Some medical pharmaceuticals are far more dangerous to a developing fetus than street drugs, among them tretonoin (a.k.a. “Retin A” or retinoic acid) and thalidomide.
While taking unnecessary drugs during pregnancy is bad, it could be argued that the other stuff involved in an addictive lifestyle – inadequate rest, bad food, exposure to disease, etc. - is just as damaging or more damaging than the drug exposure.
Bottom line – prenatal drug exposure doesn’t doom a person to a sub-optimal life, mind, or body.
Proper support – whether assisting a parent or parents to properly treat/deal with addiction up to and including permanent removal from inadequate parents, will greatly increase the chances of those kids growing up to be productive adults. Again, being born to addicted parents doesn’t doom you to a life of crime and drugs. As I worked at a clinic in the 1990’s involved in treating addicts I got to see a lot of examples of kids born to addicts who nonetheless grew up, graduated high school, went to college, and went on to careers and middle-class lifestyles. The thing is, you don’t hear about the ones who do well, they aren’t newsworthy. You only hear about the failures and worst-cases because that’s what sells cornflakes for the media.
Well, yes, not likely to live into middle age, although a certain number become officially disabled and qualify for SS and Medicare that way… although they don’t tend to live long, either.
Seeing as most of those kids, despite a rough start, WILL be physically and mentally normal once they’re here I think it’s in society’s best interest to investment sufficiently in their upbringing that it maximizes the chances of them becoming independent, self-supporting adults.
There is a huge, unmet need for certain types of babies for adoption - like white, male, healthy, not previously exposed to certain things like drugs, no crazy in the family tree…
Which is not to say that non-white, female, not-healthy, heavily exposed to Bad Things babies don’t get adopted, just that they are not as much in demand. Still some demand, though, which is how so many foreign children wound up in the US, some of them with quite dodgey backgrounds.
I hasten to add, though, many of those kids do turn out OK.
I can’t entirely fault adoptive parents - certain types of baggage ARE harder to deal with than others. If a prospective parent says “I don’t care about gender or color but I don’t think I could deal with mental retardation or a kid in a wheelchair” we shouldn’t be forcing them to deal with those things. And yes, in the great lottery known a life a child sprung from one’s loins could wind up with that sort of condition and while many parents rise to the occasion others don’t… but I don’t have a solution to every bad thing that could potentially happen.
Personally I feel that if its not interfering in your life you should mind your own business. You cannot expect to make rules for everything that you dont like, people have to make their own decisions. Freedom, Liberty, sound familiar?
I’m coming around to a way of thinking that having kids used to be an obligation; in our modern world, it’s neither an obligation nor a right. We passed the right to have kids about a billion people ago.
My sister and her husband are foster parents and there are times when I get very unhappy when I learn about another screw-up parent(s) and their kids who are going to be screwed up for life. I am all for forced sterilizations.
The same way we trust our government to lock people away in prison for the rest of their lives: we have a trial-by-jury and if the jury decides that the defendant is likely to have another child who will end up being taken away then they get the proverbial snip-snip.
Right now we allow local governments to take children away from their parents without any trial. I don’t see why mandatory sterilization after a trial is more icky than the state taking away children and putting them in foster care.
If you are referring to the minority of states which declined Medicaid expansion, I would agree. Let’s just be clear that in California, where the OP situation occurred, heath care is now available on an affordable sliding scale, just as in universal coverage European countries which require purchase of health insurance.
Unless you work someplace like Hobby Lobby, where your employer will buy your health care but refuse to pay for birth control, so you’re back to paying out of pocket again.
That’s a tiny group which may not even exist after the coming Supreme Court ruling.
And even if Hobby Lobby wins, they still have to pay for the largest cost, which is medical visits. So long as the docs prescribe generics, and the items are purchased at places like Target or WalMart, the costs will be still be affordable.
Just as American conservatives won’t admit that they won on welfare back in the Clinton administration, American liberals may prove unwilling to admit they won on healthcare in the Obama administration. Have we gotten everything we wanted? No, but let’s not be sore winners, and let’s certainly not feed into GOP claims that the Affordable Care Act is a failure. To the contrary, it’s a big success. Last year my daughter had no health insurance, and this year she has a good plan.
I think that is where my ass-umption came from - I used to pay a lot of medical claims on FAS kids, to the point that I began to think that parts of Alaska must be overrun with these children. So, since booze is a “lesser” drug than say, meth, I just figured that babies of drug addicted women must be worse off than the FAS kids.
Seems it would be better for everyone if these people just didn’t feel they have the right to bring trouble down on others.
I think it’s been shown several times that it is interfering with many people’s lives.
Totally. I don’t think people who can afford it should have more than two kids, so when we start getting into those who don’t have the money to raise their kids half way decently and/or are drug abusers who essentially throw the baby away as soon as it is born - why do we still tell them they have the right to reproduce?
What problems? You mean the unconstitutional ones?